DOT Plans to Ban Cell Phone Use In Automobiles

“I think it will be done. “I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if we’re going to save lives.”

Ray LaHood Sec. of Transportation

True, many drivers carelessly talk and text while driving – particularly annoying when someone else dallies at traffic signals or ignores the situation around them, all the while the familiar posture: one hand over an ear, head slightly tilted.

Summary

We live in an imperfect world. If, like me, your faith is in Jesus, you and I will one day be in a perfect world.

For now, let’s acknowledge this simple truth: we live in an imperfect world and imperfect it will continue to be.

Liberty vs. Tyranny

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

Ayn Rand

Ay Rand also wrote,

“Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection.”

Which individual rights does Ray LaHood intend to protect by disabling the use of cell phones in automobiles that are in motion?

If Ray can prevent you from using your cell phone, he can punish you for combing your hair, listening to your iPod, or dealing with squabbling children while your car is in motion.

Okay with tyranny? If yes, there awaits nothing for you to do. If no, contact Mr. Ray LaHood at the Department of Transportation to tell him you do not want government control of your cell phones while in your automobile.

What was the original purpose of the Federal Communications Commission? Established by Congress via the Communications Act of 1934. The act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission.

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide,and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ”Federal Communications Commission,” which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

Think about these words: “to make available…to all the people of the United States…nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges”.
Now, let’s break it down to three of those words: “to make available”.

What is the proper role of government – to guarantee freedom or to limit it? Consider, again, the preamble to our Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When powerful lobbyists like Google and Skype muscle in, bribing (legally with campaign contributions) lawmakers to craft legislation that gives these behemoth software companies special dispensation to overwhelm privately-owned wireless internet service providers, something that will dramatically increase operating costs, leading to increases in end-user fees, how does that serve the cause of making the internet available to consumers at “reasonable charges”?

On one hand, it sounds noble. Don’t the words just excite you: “net neutrality”? Like all of President Obama’s agenda (ObamaCare, etc.), you can be sure of two certain outcomes: increase in taxes and decrease in personal liberty.

From an email message from Dianne Edmondson, RNC for Life Executive DirectorJust a Minute, Mr. Speaker!

The Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, JOE STRAUS, is being challenged in his bid to be re-elected to a second term as Speaker. In light of the huge sweep of the Texas House by conservative Republicans, Mr. Straus is moving to bolster his conservative credentials. In fact, he has an ad on the Drudge Report in which he is claiming to be PRO LIFE. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, we have to cry foul on that.

Here are some of the reasons why we feel that Joe Straus is NOT pro-life and what you should do about this fact:

Straus has voted against pro-life principles in several instances, including:

A public-school sex education bill which was supported by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the ACLU. Some described it as allowing “Planned Parenthood to control sex education in Texas.” Rep. Straus co-authored HB 1842 in 2007. (His wife, Julie Brink Straus, was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the early 1990s.)
(Texas Rebellion Gives a Centrist a Lift)

As a State Representative in 2007, Straus received a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Straus received a $1000 donation from Winning for Women, an organization which files PAC reports with Texas Ethics Commission as “Winning for Women: A PAC for the Government Affairs Council at Planned Parenthood of Southeast & South Central Texas.”

Clearly, Joe Strauss is NOT pro-life, and we would urge pro-life Texans to encourage their state representatives to consider that very carefully when they are making commitments to anyone who is running for speaker. It is expected that the Republicans will caucus to decide whom they wish to elect as speaker, rather than having just a few Republicans coalesce with the Democrats to select the speaker, as happened in the 2009 session where Straus was chosen. Both Ken Paxton from McKinney in Collin county and Warren Chisum from Pampa in West Texas are strong pro-life advocates and are also seeking the Speaker’s post.

WASHINGTON, DC . . . As the House of Representatives reconvened this week for a lame duck session that included leadership elections, Congressman Ralph Hall (TX-4) noted, “The American people have given Republicans a tremendous opportunity to restore fiscal responsibility and make our government work more effectively.”

“The American people sent a clear message on November 2. They are counting on Republicans in the House to cut federal spending, create jobs, make government smaller and more efficient, and hold this Administration accountable through strong oversight,” Hall said. “It is up to us to uphold their expectations and do better on their behalf.”

This week the Republican Conference elected John Boehner to be Speaker of the House in the 112th Congress, subject to his formal selection when Congress convenes in January. Members of the Steering Committee also were elected by the Conference this week.

“The Conference reconfirmed our Pledge to America to cut federal spending, create jobs, and restore sound economic policies,” Hall said. “These steps are vital to getting our country moving in the right direction and will be the first order of business when the House convenes in January with Republicans in charge.”

“House Republicans also joined Senate Republicans in adopting an earmark ban for the 112th Congress,” Hall said. “The earmark ban shows the American people that we are listening and that we are serious about ending business as usual in Washington.”

“We also need to extend the Bush tax cuts to help families and businesses through this recession,” Hall noted. “These tax cuts will help stimulate the economy and provide a measure of certainty in what has been an uncertain economic environment.”

“We have much work to do on behalf of the American people, and I look forward to the opportunity to advance sound economic reforms on behalf of my district and our country.”

I began flying commercial airlines in 1967. Then, all that was required to purchase a ticket was money and cash was preferred. Airlines would even accept personal checks.

Expansion of Government power over flying citizens began with the Air Marshal program in 1968. Uniformed Air Marshals profiled potential hijackers of overseas flights. There were two simple components to federal strategy that ended hijackings of overseas flights: (1) limited fuel – just enough to satisfy minimum FAA standards and (2) Air Marshals that profiled passengers, some riding along incognito.

The USA homicide rate is 5 per 100,000. Note that it is not 100,000 per 100,000. Good police work using simple profiling methods detects and causes the capture of criminals 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Now we have TSA goons, yes, goons, that are not trained as law enforcement officers, have no experience as law enforcement officers, but doing the work of law enforcement officers. Their heavy-handed tactics are giving rise to a growing chorus of outrage by the flying public, including me. Marry this with fascist policies of the Obama administration and you have tyranny. There, I said it – tyranny.

I read simple-minded comments to news articles where citizens say they don’t like those intrusive, invasive procedures, but they “feel safer”.

At this point, I quote a founding father, Benjamin Franklin.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

And so it was I wrote to my two U.S. Senators. Herewith, Senator Hutchison’s reply:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding airline safety and security. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I understand the importance of aviation security. Since our nation was attacked on 9/11, we have instituted many effective policies to protect us against the threat of future terrorist attacks. Many of these policies naturally impact the transportation sectors in the U.S., particularly at airports. Unfortunately, these security policies systematically failed with the nearly successful terrorist attack on one of our airliners on Christmas Day 2009 by an Al Qaeda-trained Nigerian terrorist. This disturbing incident highlights the evolving nature of terrorist threats against our country.

In response to the December 25, 2009 attempted attack, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced plans to enhance passenger screening and detection capabilities, including an increase in the deployment of advanced imaging technology (AIT) machines, also known as “body imaging scanners”, from 878 units to 1,800 units by 2014. The AIT produces an image of a passenger’s body that a screener can use to identify objects or anomalies on the outside of the physical body. TSA officials have also indicated they hope to use this technology for primary screening where feasible, rather than as a strictly secondary measure. However, passengers concerned for their personal privacy may always opt for traditional screening methods.

We must ensure that the federal security agencies entrusted with protecting us can adapt the detection and prevention measures we employ to stay ahead of these changing threats. It is clear that the current measures in place were inadequate to prevent this type of plot. The country was very fortunate that when the device malfunctioned the crew and passengers of flight 253 acted heroically. Our nation must do better.

Along with this increased commitment comes an increased responsibility on the part of the security agents and administrators. TSA must pay close attention to the privacy concerns of individuals, consistently demonstrate reasonable judgment, and perform its duties in a highly professional manner. Failure to exercise sound judgment and professionalism is not acceptable. Please be assured that I will continue to do everything in my power to hold security providers accountable.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

There was a good reason for the Fourth Amendment. Never did the founding fathers envision “every citizen a suspect”. We were given a written Bill of Rights, not for our own self-seeking pleasures and wanton pursuits, but to defend us from government.

The last time I checked, it wasn’t a good ‘ole Baptist boy from Rockwall Texas that crashed airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

I hold a concealed handgun license, a clean legal record and I have been investigated numerous times by various military establishments where we do business, along with at least to Sheriff departments for whom we provide essential services to jails. I am fed up with undignified, intrusive, illogical, unwarranted and unconstitutional searches.

We drive EVERYWHERE, including trips from Texas to New York and Florida, all to avoid TSA molestation of our persons.

Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us,